Use of the term "Obamacons" is not conducive to an honest, civil discussion.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to use the word "Obamacons", that's a new one on me, and particularly offensive, IMHO.

You think your candidate's been particularly wronged, but can you claim objectivity there? This is why I generally try not to make claims about the media except to note two things nobody can deny.

1) They're in it for the money, and nobody/nothing else.

2) McCain's the only one who got a free ride.

Besides, if your voting opinion is affected by a few people on the Internet, you need to really get a more realistic and grounded view of discourse on the Internet, or stick to meat-world. All the Clinton/Obama supporters I've met IRL have never, ever, ever, EVER displayed this level of animosity. The anonymous nature of the Internet plays to it, and there's trolls on all sides trying to further the divide.

"hey, you stupid blind robots! be nice to me, admit you really lost, and i might vote for your candidate."

this is a fu**ing ridiculous way to search for solidarity. you will NEVER finds solidarity down this path.

every week or so I come back to mydd.com to see if anything has changed, but I continually find more Obama bashing. I wonder if it'll last until november.

Is there anybody reasonable around these parts?  The essense of my diary was not intended to be inflamatory.  I'm trying to have an honest discussion.  

"Obamacons have a certain perception that I believe is not true"

I am not an "Obamacon." I don't know what an Obamacon is. Is it like a neo-con, or does the name mean a con job by Obama? Is it the opposite of a Clintoncon?

I support Obama, but I do not believe he was always destined to win. The campaign is where it is because of choices made on both sides, and by 3rd parties.

Obama more inherited Caucuses and Michigan-Florida debacles than he created them. I freely admit, if things had been different in the past, they would be different in present.

I can imagine 100 ways Obama could've lost this nomination in the past, or that Clinton could've won it.

   it's what a frontrunner always does. Kerry did the same thing to Edwards in 2004, he largely ignored him...only debated him one time before those Super Tuesday contests.

 After NH, Gore simply ignored Bradley.

 It's not arrogance, it's political strategy. Clinton played that card when she thought she was going to be the nominee. She didn't work hard, she didn't fight for it. She didn't build a grassroots movement, she didn't put a team on the ground EVERYWHERE. She relied on money and big names.

  She had a perfect right to do that, but it backfired.

  What Obama is doing is not arrogance. It's simply political strategy. He's the obvious frontrunner, and he's acting that way. Same as Clinton when she was the obvious.

  I appreciate you trying to have a serious discussion and will gladly respond. As long as no Kool-Aid or cultist comments come my way, which they do far too often on this site.

I am sure your heart is heavy but try leaving your computer OFF! Just turn off the computer and go read a book or something. Maybe you can go to the beach its getting warm, or at least to listen to the soothing sounds of the ocean. Honestly, if the comments are whats getting in your way then just log off for a  month and it will all be fine. Thats my advice. Oh yeah its ok to vote for McCain if you think he is the better canidate. This is a democracy and if you think McCain's plans for America are better than Obama's you dont need the support of an Obama supporter to make up your mind about that. If your still upset about the campaigns fairness to Clinton let me remind you this is POLITICS. When your not liked by people they are not nice to you. Someone was probally pissing people off over the years and had some hard core enemies. Thats life, not yours but hers. She made her bed played her cards and lost. Accept as Biden, Dodd, Richards, Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel, Supporters did. Your not first your not the last and they got treated way worse than Clinton and many had more experience.

Why can't you guys stop telling us to "admit" things we don't agree with.

The media has overplayed racism and underplayed sexism.

No, I don't think it has. I think sexism exists, but I don't think it was a big factor in the Dem primaries, though it might have been in the GE. In every state more women voted than men. Being a women helped Hillary in the primaries, in my opinion. Sure, the media talked about racism, which I believe was a significant factor in some states. But guess what, they also talked a lot about the black vote as if it was a given for Obama. They did not talk about men being sexist, but they also did not talk about how women would naturally rally around Hillary because, well, in a lot of places they didn't.
And yes, a nasty campaign is nasty no matter the gender of the candidate.

Caucuses: We will over and over again admit that Obama had the advantage here. Because he played the game right! His campaign did not give up on these states and organized. This isn't about the demographics, its about the fact that Clinton stupidly conceded caucuses. So instead of realizing that her losses were due to poor campaign organization, you call them undemocratic and unfair. Cry me a river.

Florida and Michigan. Had all been fair in these states, Obama would have done much better. Hillary would probably still have won FL and maybe MI, but Obama would still be close enough that he would still have about a 100 pledged delegate lead.

I'm glad you are in what I believe is the vast majority of Clinton supporters that will support the nominee. But please, stop insulting us. I really do disagree with you on these points. I haven't been pretending to just for the sake of winning. Please respect that us Obama supporters have a different opinion than you.

Here's why I won't "admit it": Both campaigns have known that things were going to be this way since last January.  Both campaigns knew that there were going to be caucuses; both campaigns knew going in how they were going to be portrayed by the media if they took certain actions.  By the fall, both campaigns also knew that MI and FL were going to move their primary dates up and as a result weren't going to get any delegates.

Barack Obama and his campaign planned for caucuses, planned to counteract certain media messages about him, planned to play on the playing field as it's laid out.  Hillary Clinton and her campaign ignored caucuses almost entirely, with very few exceptions played into a lot of the media narrative about her, and when things didn't work out on the playing field as it was tried to retroactively change the rules.

Had the rules been different, there's little doubt in my mind that the Obama campaign would have adapted to the situation and operated according to different strategies; they've demonstrated throughout this campaign that they are more than capable of thinking ahead and tailoring their campaign to the situation on the ground.  I very much doubt that we would have seen the same strategic flexibility from the Clinton campaign, who up until last month seemed stuck in a particular paradigm and unable to get out of it.

That would have swung this contest:

1.  If the Media had taken Edwards seriously he may have stayed in a lot longer.  He would have taken from both candidates and IMHO Clinton would have been the eventual winner.

2.  If Florida and Michigan hadn't moved up their primaries, then both would have happened later in the cycle.  Obama would have likely taken Michigan and Clinton definitely would have taken Florida.  Without doing the math, I am not sure this would have seriously changed the contest except it might not have dragged on as long.

Now, I was an Edwards supporter who really didn't have a dog in the hunt for the quite a while.  I have always thought that Obama and Clinton platforms were 95 percent the same, which is why I don't get why everyone is so het up.

Ouch! Please stop saying "Kerry." He's one of my senators, and I still knew he was a horrible choice for a presidential candidate. He's just not a good campaigner.

I agree with southernman that Obama is acting like the frontrunner. That is what politicians do.

I think we are seeing the real Obama come out - a smart, tough politician, not the Chosen One. It's going to be interesting in November. Will any Obama believers feel betrayed when the Republicans come on full force and Obama responds in kind?

I still sent Hillary some more $$ - still love her best!

..it's too bad that most of the good thoughts contained in this diary have been subordinated to the "Obamacon" flap. Thanks for changing the title so that the conversation you intended might proceed.

I would like to focus in on your final comments - "how much of this is about winning?" I truly believe that Obama supporters have been missing the mark by focusing in on technicalities as if this were a game. It has also been disconcerting to see the Obama crowd spin the "presumptive nominee" stuff even though all states have not had their primaries and the votes and delegate counts remain very close.  

If it weren't for over-sized egos exercised some 10-15 years ago, the Clinton's wouldn't be fighting so hard to win their delegate majority today. Having said that, I put my money on their experience and wisdom from these very lessons, which Barack Obama still has in front of him. Why should we subject our country to the distraction of educating another non-Washington insider? I say that we do not have the luxury of time to do that.

1) there have been rough patches in the media for the both of them, claiming otherwise is ridiculous. This primary is not about who can cry racism or sexism the loudest.

2) I have no idea what the demographics of caucuses are because only two have entrance polls - Nevada and Iowa. They have advantages and disadvantages and primarily benefit small states with republican majorities (what with the activism involved - and activists are no bad thing, they are absolutely required for the Democratic party). Regardless, they shouldn't be dismissed half way though the cycle because your candidate didn't do well in them. Take it up after the convention. And yes, the rules do need to be straightened out so this ridiculous situation doesn't happen again. Perhaps universal primaries with identical rules with regards to who can vote (open or closed) and a reduction in superdelegates (or give them all half a vote).

Oh, and it is fairly well documented that Obama was organising in small Feb 5th states long before Hillary, which accounts for his victory on Super Tuesday.

3) If Michigan and Florida had stuck to the rules then I would predict a tie or an Obama win in Michigan and a fair win for Hillary in Florida (5-10 points). Enough to have made a difference? Not really, but as long as they are unresolved Hillary can argue to continue on and increase any resentment within those states.

I will try to answer you questions thoughtfully and sincerely.

1. Yes we think Obama is superior because we chose him. Just as people voting for Senator Clinton chose her for varying reasons, the same goes for us..for me..policies and consistency meant the difference.

2. Of course we want you to come to our side, given the fact that it is all but certain he will be the candidate, we realize the biggest threat to losing is not McCain, but ourselves. Unfortunately us Democrats are most notorious for shooting ourselves in the foot....we cant seem to count on each other to do what is best for the party and country all the time.

3.I disagree on your Obama arrogance or sexist statement.  Obama knows he has to show that he is confident and can fight McCain, also he knows this thing is basically locked and he needs to start addressing McCain now.  Obama has shown no signs of being a sexist, I heard the sweetie remark, but come on, you could read his body language and realize he was not trying to belittle anyone.

4. You think Clinton is the most electable and best candidate and I think Obama is...who is right and who is wrong.  What you think is your truth and what I thing is mine. It is not your place to appease me if my candidate is losing nor is it my place to do it for you.

5. For the first time ever in my adult voting life, I am seeing people speak out about the way we nominate our candidate (caucuses, delegates, supers delegates, penalties, blah blah) While I can certainly agree that there may be better ways and policies that should be discussed and maybe changed, in the middle or end of a election cycle is not the time to do so.  Also it should be pointed out that Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John Kerry and others went through the same exact process...if we hate the process so much and it is so undemocratic why have we not changed it or discussed it before now, just like nobody was discussing MI and Florida DNC penalties until after super tuesday....be honest, does this really hold as credible at this moment in time...not to me and many others...in fact in our eyes it reeks of deception.  Change them if we must or need to but wait until after the election.

6. The media has taken turns assassinating both candidates...being objective as I possibly can be, I see where they have been overly unkind to Senator Clinton at times and I have seen them do the same with Senator Obama.  

If I missed anything...let me know and I will be glad to answer you on any topic as honest as I can.

1. i think this post would go a lot further without the "obamacons."  

2. i agree that SOME obama supporters should practice more modesty. (again, i think cutting it out with the "obamacons" crap would help).  I also agree that obama's "victory laps" (though this is a phrase i have seen used by the media, not necessarily by the obama campaign) does come off as arrogant.  especially before the meeting of the rules and bylaws committee at the end of the month.  truthfully, the only thing i can say with certainty about the required delegate count is that it won't be 2025, and it won't be 2209...

3.I agree that the media has played up the racism and played down the sexism. i believe that this is because the racism angle is more sensationalist or sexy; it sells better.  i agree that this in and of it's self is indicative of pervasive sexism in our society.  but the blame for this falls on the media, not on obama or his campaign.

4. i have never participated in a caucus and i agree that they are flawed and somewhat outdated.  i agree that perhaps caucuses have favored obama.  but i think to be honest one needs to question why exactly was it such an advantage? i also feel that the circumstances of the race would be different if clinton did not underestimate them so terribly.  that was the job of her campaign and they failed.

5. i agree that things would perhaps be different if florida and michigan had not been so monumentally screwed up.  but also, one needs to ponder the potential differences that would result if these states had not broken the rules and kept their primaries until after super tuesday:  both candidates would have had an opportunity to campaign and the voters in these states would have seen obama's early victories and could assess him as a viable candidate, which was still a persistent question in january.  there IS a reason  that we try to avoid front loading the calender with huge states.

6. so there it is.  my best attempt at an ego free response to your diary.  i hope it helps.

Except for Obamacons I can deal with the vibe of this diary. I get it that people are bummed and hurt and don't want to get their faces rubbed in it. I think most Obama supporters here are being pretty even handed though.

Can Obama supporters admit that caucuses favored their candidate in ways that might not have happened if there were primaries?  No it wasn't simply that he was a better campaigner.

Can you admit that it's both?  If you're going to do battle in a contest, you should do battle by the rules of that contest.  Obama's demonstrated that he's capable of winning the Democratic nomination by doing the things that secure the nomination.  That includes both primaries and caucuses.  If Clinton were better at winning these contests, she'd be ahead in the pledged delegate count.  She's not.

We can argue about whether that's good or bad, and we can argue about whether or not it's fair but no election is actually fair in any true sense.  Elections are games, and when it comes to the general election, I want the person leading my party to be the one who's shown the most flexibility, the most creativeness and most importantly, the strongest ability to win elections.  So far, Obama's demonstrated his ability to do these things.  Clinton hasn't.  She's run a good campaign.  She just hasn't run an extraordinary campaign.

I, too, started off with Edwards.  I volunteered for his campaign and we lost in New Hampshire, badly.  I still admire the guy, but he ran a poor campaign.  He didn't earn the nomination and though it saddens me, I'm okay with that.

Clinton spent a good deal of her time as a candidate discussing how it was a race for delegates and how, at the end of the day, that's all that matters.  When she thought that she could win by superdelegate edict, that was good for her.  Now that she's losing that battle, too, it's no longer fair and it's all about the rights of the people.  

Sorry: Rachel Maddow has it right.  It's like you're playing a game with someone who loses and then says "best 2 out of 3" and then, when she loses again, says "best 3 out of 5" and just keeps going.  

Obama as our nominee was never inevitable, but he's won this contest, and unless something ridiculous happens between now and the convention, he's our nominee and, most importantly, whether you like it or not, he's earned it.

Great diary. I disagree with many if not most of your points, but I think that you laid out your argument in a way that is conducive to civil discourse.

I agree regarding sexism in the media. I think certain pundits said gender insensitive things and then ignored the issues of sexism in their coverage. However, I also think that the media played a role in promoting racial divides by constantly insisting that Obama has a "white-voter problem" or that Clinton has a "black-voter problem".

Regarding the caucus and primary systems as well as Michigan/Florida, I feel that both campaigns knew beforehand what the rules were going to be and therefore molded their campaigns around these rules. Hillary Clinton thought that focusing on big states, combined with her familiarity among superdelegates, would net her enough delegates to win the nomination. Barack Obama saw that grassroots activism could help him win smaller states by large margins to get him the necessary delegates. Both campaigns knew that Michigan and Florida were off the table because they violated DNC rules. If both campaigns agree on a method of sitting those states' delegates, then so be it, but let's keep in mind that the Michigan/Florida state parties screwed voters over, not the DNC or either campaign. Whatever happens, we need to remember that both campaigns organized in the way that they felt would win their respective candidates the nomination. Obama's strategy so far has proved to be better. He played by the rules and his victories have been legitimate.

You say that everyone on Wisconsin Radio said HRC ran a nasty campaign. Then you wonder if "nasty" has the same connotation for a male in politics. The word "nasty" is a nice word compared to what they would've used in a male vs. male campaign. The male vs. male term is "dirty" so I think HRC got off a little easy in Wisconsin, maybe the sexism worked in reverse here.

We could debate forever (and have done so in fact) about who is the superior candidate.  What is not a matter of debate is who had the superior campaign.  The people who would do the best job of all as president could never be elected (and in fact would never run).  We need to find someone who will do a good job and run a campaign good enough to get elected.

Caucuses stink - no argument there.  Until this year, they favored the establishment candidate because of the built-in organization that comes from that.  Clinton did reasonably well in the caucus states in which she competed (Iowa, Nevada).  Obama's campaign was superior in that he competed in all the caucus states and created the organization needed to do well.

If Florida and Michigan were fair elections, I don't think they would end up making much difference.  Michigan would be well-suited for Obama, with a reasonably high African-American population and no Appalachian influence.  It would look quite different from Ohio.  Clinton would still win in Florida, but most likely by single digits if there was campaigning allowed.

I don't believe that Obama is being arrogant.  I think he realizes that his time is better served taking down the real enemy - McCain.  Continuing to waste valuable resources  against a fellow democrat (and maybe running mate) when the race is over (my opinion not fact) is not a good idea.

I think the media has been harder on racism and than sexism because the racism has been more transparent.  I am not saying that sexism isn't happening only that the people doing it are better at it than the people who are race-baiting.  That doesn't make either okay.  It is easier for the media to play obvious clips than to try to explain innuendo.

Caucuses only favored Obama because HRC ceded those states to him.  She didn't even try.  If her campaign had played smarter and spread out their vast resources to these places, she would have done much better.  The caucus system did not screw Hillary, Mark Penn's total idiocy did.  I would imagine that even ardent HRC supporters think Penn  ruined her chances.

As for Michigan and Florida:  I would be happy to admit that had their original primaries mattered things would look differently.  In my opinion, Obama's victory would be more concrete at this point.  The race-baiting had already started in NH so the african american community would have come out in large numbers to vote BHO in Michigan.  The margins would not have been as large as later states but they would have made him very competitive.  If Florida mattered, all three candidates would have spent a great deal of time there.  Obama would have increased his popularity there as he has done in every state he visits.  He still would have lost but not by the current and disputable margin on the books.

Being as constructive as possible, there's a fundamental problem with the idea being put forward in this diary. There's a world of difference between "let me mourn my loss and and be polite" (which I think the vast majority of Obama supporters are doing) and the idea being put forward here, which is that we are somehow being insulting and disrespectful for responding in any way at all to attacks against the presumptive Democratic nominee.

I may be wrong, but when I see the list from the diary being put forward in discussions here it isn't being put forward as part of the mourning process. It's being said as sincere and whole hearted efforts to delegitimized the nomination process and as much as I respect Sen. Clinton's supporters right to vent it does need to be debunked.

When I see diary after diary praising a group being formed in swing states to actively try and stop Sen. Obama from being elected because of perceived sexism against Sen. Clinton, I have to speak out. When I see people touting a popular vote that ignores the fact two of the votes being counted are illegitimate (one of which Obama wasn't even on the ballot for) and discounting another 4 states for the express purpose of saying whatever happens Sen. Clinton is the only valid choice for the nominee, I have to speak out. When I see people claiming that 15 of our primaries are illegitimate because Sen. Clinton ignored them and has had to downplay them to stay competitive, I have to speak out.

As much as I respect your right to vent, we need to think about tomorrow as much as today. Every time Jerome or a diary attacks Obama or the process that got us here, someone's attitude hardens for the general. There comes a time where the benefits of politely biting your tongue while this site vents is outweighed by the damage being down later down the line.

I fully respect Sen. Clinton was your first choice and there is much to praise about her. I don't accept the idea that in order to do that I need to allow you to trash the presumptive Democratic nominee and the process that got us here.

First, overriding everything else is the point that Obama won a fair fight.  The delegate selection process and rules in state after state were transparent, and Hillary had access to all the same information as Obama.  Hillary just lost.  It doesn't mean anything that some states had caucuses; it's simply every candidate's responsibility to prepare for that.  That Hillary fared worse is her own fault.  Hillary was the overwhelming favorite and blew it with bad decisions, both on the macro strategic level and on the micro level.

Being the big college football and college basketball fan that I am, I find myself coming back repeatedly to football and basketball analogies.  Hillary essentially was a huge favorite who just didn't show up ready to play.  She loses in an upset in a close game, and her fans essentially point to so many excuses, a bad call by the refs here or an uncharacteristic missed open jumper there, as responsible for the defeat, and complain they're still the better team.  But in the end all of that is nothing but sour grapes.  What matters is you prove you're better in the actual game and not just SAY you are, and one team showed up prepared and ready to go, and the other didn't.  So yes, Obama was superior when it mattered:  game time.  He ran a superior campaign, period.  Is he a superior nominee for the fall?  Obviously Democrats are deeply split on that question or this thing would have been long since over.  We're not going to change each other's minds in just the next few weeks, that's for sure, and maybe never.

Hillary made the same mistakes in state after state after state, much like a team of talented players who just keep losing and losing and losing because of bad coaching and lack of fundamentals and failing to come together as a team and failing simply to get their heads out of their asses.

Hillary could have won and been the nominee simply by being prepared for all those states, not just a few.  I really believe that.  It still would have been drawn out because Obama still would have the same loyal base and the same money, and it would have remained somewhat close.  But he still could have lost fair and square, and all but a few of us--even most black Democrats--would have been fine with that and rallied around Hillary.

The bottom line:  I can agree to disagree with Hillary supporters on who has a better chance of winning in November, and on who ultimately would be a better President.  But it WAS a fair fight, that's just the truth.  The voters have spoken.

were accusing Clinton of running a nasty campaign is b/c she WAS.

Why can't you just admit THAT???